Home About Network of subjects Linked subjects heatmap Book indices included Search by subject Search by reference Browse subjects Browse texts

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database



8012
Mishnah, Ketuvot, 4.6


הָאָב אֵינוֹ חַיָּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹת בִּתּוֹ. זֶה מִדְרָשׁ דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים בַּכֶּרֶם בְּיַבְנֶה, הַבָּנִים יִירְשׁוּ וְהַבָּנוֹת יִזּוֹנוּ, מָה הַבָּנִים אֵינָן יוֹרְשִׁין אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתַת הָאָב, אַף הַבָּנוֹת אֵינָן נִזּוֹנוֹת אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן:A father is not obligated to maintain his daughter. This exposition was made by Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah in front of the sages in the vineyard of Yavneh: “The sons shall inherit [their mother’s kethubah] and the daughters shall be maintained [out of their father’s estate” just as the sons do not inherit except after the death of their father, so the daughters are not maintained except after the death of their father.


Intertexts (texts cited often on the same page as the searched text):

7 results
1. Mishnah, Gittin, 9.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

9.3. The body of the get is: “Behold you are permitted to any man.” Rabbi Judah says: [he must add] “And this shall be to you from me a writ of divorce and a letter of release and a bill of dismissal, with which you may go and marry any man that you wish.” The body of a writ of emancipation is: “Behold you are a free woman”, “Behold you belong to yourself.”"
2. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, 4.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

3. Palestinian Talmud, Taanit, 4.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

4. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

28a. דלמא מעברין לך אמר לה [לשתמש אינש] יומא חדא בכסא דמוקרא ולמחר ליתבר אמרה ליה לית לך חיורתא ההוא יומא בר תמני סרי שני הוה אתרחיש ליה ניסא ואהדרו ליה תמני סרי דרי חיורתא היינו דקאמר ר' אלעזר בן עזריה הרי אני כבן שבעים שנה ולא בן שבעים שנה,תנא אותו היום סלקוהו לשומר הפתח ונתנה להם רשות לתלמידים ליכנס שהיה ר"ג מכריז ואומר כל תלמיד שאין תוכו כברו לא יכנס לבית המדרש,ההוא יומא אתוספו כמה ספסלי א"ר יוחנן פליגי בה אבא יוסף בן דוסתאי ורבנן חד אמר אתוספו ארבע מאה ספסלי וחד אמר שבע מאה ספסלי הוה קא חלשא דעתיה דר"ג אמר דלמא ח"ו מנעתי תורה מישראל אחזו ליה בחלמיה חצבי חיורי דמליין קטמא ולא היא ההיא ליתובי דעתיה הוא דאחזו ליה,תנא עדיות בו ביום נשנית וכל היכא דאמרינן בו ביום ההוא יומא הוה ולא היתה הלכה שהיתה תלויה בבית המדרש שלא פירשוה ואף ר"ג לא מנע עצמו מבית המדרש אפילו שעה אחת,דתנן בו ביום בא יהודה גר עמוני לפניהם בבית המדרש אמר להם מה אני לבא בקהל,א"ל ר"ג אסור אתה לבא בקהל א"ל ר' יהושע מותר אתה לבא בקהל א"ל ר"ג והלא כבר נאמר (דברים כג, ד) לא יבא עמוני ומואבי בקהל ה' א"ל ר' יהושע וכי עמון ומואב במקומן הן יושבין כבר עלה סנחריב מלך אשור ובלבל את כל האומות שנאמר (ישעיהו י, יג) ואסיר גבולות עמים ועתידותיהם שוסתי ואוריד כאביר יושבים וכל דפריש מרובא פריש,אמר לו ר"ג והלא כבר נאמר (ירמיהו מט, ו) ואחרי כן אשיב את שבות בני עמון נאם ה' וכבר שבו,אמר לו ר' יהושע והלא כבר נאמר (עמוס ט, יד) ושבתי את שבות עמי ישראל ועדיין לא שבו מיד התירוהו לבא בקהל,אר"ג הואיל והכי הוה איזיל ואפייסיה לר' יהושע כי מטא לביתיה חזינהו לאשיתא דביתיה דמשחרן א"ל מכותלי ביתך אתה ניכר שפחמי אתה א"ל אוי לו לדור שאתה פרנסו שאי אתה יודע בצערן של ת"ח במה הם מתפרנסים ובמה הם נזונים,אמר לו נעניתי לך מחול לי לא אשגח ביה עשה בשביל כבוד אבא פייס,אמרו מאן ניזיל ולימא להו לרבנן אמר להו ההוא כובס אנא אזילנא שלח להו ר' יהושע לבי מדרשא מאן דלביש מדא ילבש מדא ומאן דלא לביש מדא יימר ליה למאן דלביש מדא שלח מדך ואנא אלבשיה אמר להו ר"ע לרבנן טרוקו גלי דלא ליתו עבדי דר"ג ולצערו לרבנן,א"ר יהושע מוטב דאיקום ואיזיל אנא לגבייהו אתא טרף אבבא א"ל מזה בן מזה יזה ושאינו לא מזה ולא בן מזה יאמר למזה בן מזה מימיך מי מערה ואפרך אפר מקלה א"ל ר"ע רבי יהושע נתפייסת כלום עשינו אלא בשביל כבודך למחר אני ואתה נשכים לפתחו,אמרי היכי נעביד נעבריה גמירי מעלין בקדש ואין מורידין נדרוש מר חדא שבתא ומר חדא שבתא אתי לקנאויי אלא לדרוש ר"ג תלתא שבתי וראב"ע חדא שבתא והיינו דאמר מר שבת של מי היתה של ראב"ע היתה ואותו תלמיד ר' שמעון בן יוחאי הוה:,ושל מוספין כל היום: א"ר יוחנן ונקרא פושע,ת"ר היו לפניו שתי תפלות אחת של מנחה ואחת של מוסף מתפלל של מנחה ואח"כ מתפלל של מוסף שזו תדירה וזו אינה תדירה ר' יהודה אומר מתפלל של מוסף ואח"כ מתפלל של מנחה שזו מצוה עוברת וזו מצוה שאינה עוברת א"ר יוחנן הלכה מתפלל של מנחה ואח"כ מתפלל של מוסף,ר' זירא כי הוה חליש מגירסיה הוה אזיל ויתיב אפתחא דבי ר' נתן בר טובי אמר כי חלפי רבנן אז איקום מקמייהו ואקבל אגרא נפק אתא ר' נתן בר טובי א"ל מאן אמר הלכה בי מדרשא א"ל הכי א"ר יוחנן אין הלכה כר' יהודה דאמר מתפלל אדם של מוסף ואח"כ מתפלל של מנחה,א"ל רבי יוחנן אמרה אמר ליה אין תנא מיניה ארבעין זמנין א"ל חדא היא לך או חדת היא לך א"ל חדת היא לי משום דמספקא לי בר' יהושע בן לוי:,אריב"ל כל המתפלל תפלה של מוספין לאחר שבע שעות לר' יהודה עליו הכתוב אומר (צפניה ג, יח) נוגי ממועד אספתי ממך היו מאי משמע דהאי נוגי לישנא דתברא הוא כדמתרגם רב יוסף תברא אתי על שנאיהון דבית ישראל על דאחרו זמני מועדיא דבירושלים,א"ר אלעזר כל המתפלל תפלה של שחרית לאחר ארבע שעות לר' יהודה עליו הכתוב אומר נוגי ממועד אספתי ממך היו מאי משמע דהאי נוגי לישנא דצערא הוא דכתיב (תהלים קיט, כח) דלפה נפשי מתוגה רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר מהכא (איכה א, ד) בתולותיה נוגות והיא מר לה 28a. There is room for concern. bPerhaps they will remove youfrom office just as they removed Rabban Gamliel. bHe said to her,based on the folk saying: bLet a person use an expensive goblet one day and let it break tomorrow.In other words, one should take advantage of an opportunity that presents itself and he need not concern himself whether or not it will last. bShe said to him: You have no whitehair, and it is inappropriate for one so young to head the Sages. The Gemara relates: bThat day, he was eighteen years old, a miracle transpired for him and eighteen rows of hair turned white.The Gemara comments: bThatexplains bthat which Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: I am as one who is seventy years old and he did not say: I am seventy years old,because he looked older than he actually was., bIt was taught: On that daythat they removed Rabban Gamliel from his position and appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya in his place, there was also a fundamental change in the general approach of the study hall as bthey dismissed the guard at the door and permission was granted to the students to enter.Instead of Rabban Gamliel’s selective approach that asserted that the students must be screened before accepting them into the study hall, the new approach asserted that anyone who seeks to study should be given opportunity to do so. bAs Rabban Gamliel would proclaim and say: Any student whose inside,his thoughts and feelings, bare not like his outside,i.e., his conduct and his character traits are lacking, bwill not enter the study hall. /b,The Gemara relates: bOn that day several benches were addedto the study hall to accommodate the numerous students. bRabbi Yoḥa said: Abba Yosef ben Dostai and the Rabbis disputed thismatter. bOne said: Four hundred benches were addedto the study hall. bAnd one said: Seven hundred benches were addedto the study hall. When he saw the tremendous growth in the number of students, bRabban Gamliel was disheartened. He said: Perhaps, Heaven forbid, I prevented Israel fromengaging in bTorahstudy. bThey showed him in his dream white jugs filled with ashesalluding to the fact that the additional students were worthless idlers. The Gemara comments: bThat is notthe case, but bthatdream bwas shown to him to ease his mindso that he would not feel bad., bIt was taught:There is a tradition that tractate iEduyyotwas taught that day. And everywherein the Mishna or in a ibaraita bthat they say: On that day, it isreferring to bthat day. There was no ihalakhawhose ruling was pending in the study hall that they did not explainand arrive at a practical halakhic conclusion. bAnd even Rabban Gamliel did not avoid the study hall for even one moment,as he held no grudge against those who removed him from office and he participated in the halakhic discourse in the study hall as one of the Sages., bAs we learnedin a mishna: bOn that day, Yehuda, the Ammonite convert, came beforethe students in the study hall band he said to them: What is mylegal status in terms of bentering into the congregationof Israel, i.e., to marry a Jewish woman?, bRabban Gamliel said to him: You are forbidden to enter into the congregation. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: You are permitted to enter into the congregation. Rabban Gamliel said toRabbi Yehoshua: bWasn’t it already stated: “An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord;even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the congregation of the Lord forever” (Deuteronomy 23:4)? How can you permit him to enter the congregation? bRabbi Yehoshua said toRabban Gamliel: bDo Ammon and Moab reside in their place? Sennacherib already came and,through his policy of population transfer, bscrambled all the nationsand settled other nations in place of Ammon. Consequently, the current residents of Ammon and Moab are not ethnic Ammonites and Moabites, bas it is stated inreference to Sennacherib: b“I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants”(Isaiah 10:13). bAndalthough it is conceivable that this particular convert is an ethnic Ammonite, nevertheless, there is no need for concern due to the halakhic principle: bAnything that partsfrom a group bparts from the majority,and the assumption is that he is from the majority of nations whose members are permitted to enter the congregation., bRabban Gamliel said toRabbi Yehoshua: bBut wasn’t it already stated: “But afterward I will bring back the captivity of the children of Ammon, says the Lord”(Jeremiah 49:6) band they have already returnedto their land? Therefore, he is an ethnic Ammonite and he may not convert., bRabbi Yehoshua said toRabban Gamliel: That is no proof. bWasn’t it already statedin another prophecy: b“And I will turn the captivity of My people Israeland they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them” (Amos 9:14), band they have not yet returned?In rendering the ruling, only proven facts may be taken into consideration. bThey immediately permitted him to enter the congregation.This proves that Rabban Gamliel did not absent himself from the study hall that day and participated in the halakhic discourse., bRabban Gamliel saidto himself: bSince this isthe situation, that the people are following Rabbi Yehoshua, apparently he was right. Therefore, it would be appropriate for me to bgo and appease Rabbi Yehoshua. When he reachedRabbi Yehoshua’s bhouse, he sawthat bthe walls of his house were black.Rabban Gamliel bsaid toRabbi Yehoshua in wonderment: bFrom the walls of your house it is apparent that you are a blacksmith,as until then he had no idea that Rabbi Yehoshua was forced to engage in that arduous trade in order to make a living. Rabbi Yehoshua bsaid to him: Woe unto a generation that you are its leader as you are unaware of the difficulties of Torah scholars, how they make a living and how they feed themselves. /b,Rabban Gamliel bsaid to him: I insulted you, forgive me.Rabbi Yehoshua bpaid him no attentionand did not forgive him. He asked him again: bDo it in deference to my father,Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who was one of the leaders of Israel at the time of the destruction of the Temple. bHe was appeased. /b,Now that Rabbi Yehoshua was no longer offended, it was only natural that Rabban Gamliel would be restored to his position. bThey said: Who will go and inform the Sages?Apparently, they were not eager to carry out the mission that would undo the previous actions and remove Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya from his position as iNasi /i. bThis launderer said to them: I will go. Rabbi Yehoshua sent tothe Sages bto the study hall: The one who wears the uniform willcontinue to bwear the uniform,the original iNasiwill remain in his position so that bthe one who did not wear the uniform willnot bsay to the one who wears the uniform, remove your uniform and I will wear it.Apparently, the Sages believed that this emissary was dispatched at the initiative of Rabban Gamliel and they ignored him. bRabbi Akiva said to the Sages: Lock the gates so that Rabban Gamliel’s servants will not come and disturb the Sages. /b,When he heard what happened, bRabbi Yehoshua said: It is best if I go to them. He came and knocked on the door. He said to themwith a slight variation: bOne who sprinklespure water on those who are ritually impure, bson of one who sprinkleswater bshallcontinue bto sprinklewater. And it is inappropriate that he who is bneither one who sprinkles nor son of one who sprinkles will say to one who sprinkles son of one who sprinkles: Your water is cave waterand not the running water required to purify one exposed to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse band your ashes are burnt ashesand not the ashes of a red heifer. bRabbi Akiva said to him: Rabbi Yehoshua, have you been appeased? Everything we did was todefend byour honor.If you have forgiven him, none of us is opposed. bEarly tomorrow you and I will go toRabban Gamliel’s bdoorwayand offer to restore him to his position as iNasi /i.,The question arose what to do with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya? bThey said: What shall we do? Remove himfrom his position. That is inappropriate as we blearneda ihalakhathrough tradition: One belevatesto a higher level of bsanctity and does not downgrade.Therefore, one who was the iNasiof the Sanhedrin cannot be demoted. bLetone bSage lecture one week andthe other bSage one week, they will come to be jealousone of another, as they will be forced to appoint one as the acting head of the Sanhedrin. bRather, Rabban Gamliel will lecture three weeks and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryawill lecture as head of the yeshiva bone week.That arrangement was adopted band that isthe explanation of the exchange in tractate iḤagiga /i: bWhose week was it? It was the week of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.One final detail: bThat studentwho asked the original question that sparked this entire incident bwas Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai. /b,We learned in the mishna: bAnd the additional prayermay be recited ball day. Rabbi Yoḥa said:Nevertheless, bonewho postpones his prayer excessively bis called negligent. /b, bThe Rabbis taughtin a ibaraita /i: bIfthe obligation to recite btwo prayers was before him, one, the afternoon prayer and one, the additional prayer, he recites the afternoon prayerfirst band the additional prayer thereafter,because bthis,the afternoon prayer, bisrecited on a bfrequentbasis, band this one,the additional prayer, bisrecited on a relatively binfrequentbasis. bRabbi Yehuda says: He recites the additional prayerfirst band the afternoon prayer thereafter,because bthis, the additional prayer, is a mitzvawhose time soon belapses,as it may only be recited until the seventh hour band this, the afternoon prayer, is a mitzvawhose time does bnotsoon belapseas one may recite it until the midpoint of the afternoon. bRabbi Yoḥa said: The ihalakha /iis that bhe recites the afternoon prayerfirst band the additional prayer thereafter,in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.,The Gemara cites additional sources relating to this issue: bWhen Rabbi Zeira would tire of his studies, he would go and sit in the doorway of Rabbi Natan bar Tovi’s study hall. He saidto himself: bWhen theentering and exiting bSages pass, I will rise before them and be rewardedfor the mitzva of honoring Torah scholars. bRabbi Natan bar Tovihimself bemerged and cameto where Rabbi Zeira was seated. Rabbi Zeira bsaid to him: Whojust bstated a ihalakhain the study hall?Rabbi Natan bar Tovi bsaid to him: Rabbi Yoḥajust bsaid as follows: The ihalakhais not in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda who said: He recites the additional prayerfirst band the afternoon prayer thereafter. /b,Rabbi Zeira bsaid to him:Did bRabbi Yoḥahimself bsaythis ihalakha /i? Rabbi Natan bsaid to him: Yes. He learnedthis statement bfrom him forty times,etching it into his memory. Rabbi Natan bsaid to him:Is this ihalakhaso dear to you because bit is singular for you,as it is the only ihalakhathat you learned in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa, bor is it new to you,as you were previously unaware of this ruling? Rabbi Zeira bsaid to him:It bissomewhat bnew to me, as I was uncertainwhether this ihalakhawas said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa or in the name of bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.Now it is clear to me that this ihalakhais in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa., bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:With regard to banyone who recites the additional prayer after seven hoursof the day, baccording to Rabbi Yehuda, the verse states: “Those who are destroyed [ inugei /i] far from the Festivals, I shall gather from you,they who carried for you the burden of insult” (Zephaniah 3:18). bFrom wheremay it bbe inferred that inugeiis an expression of destruction? As Rav Yosef translatedthe verse into Aramaic: bDestruction comes upon the enemiesof bthe house of Israel,a euphemism for Israel itself, bfor they have delayed the times of the Festivals in Jerusalem.This proves both that inugeimeans destruction and that destruction comes upon those who fail to fulfill a mitzva at its appointed time.,Similarly, bRabbi Elazar said: Regarding anyone who recites the morning prayer after four hoursof the day, baccording to Rabbi Yehuda, the verse states: “Those who are in sorrow [ inugei /i] far from the Festivals, I shall gather from you,they who carried for you the burden of insult” (Zephaniah 3:18). bFrom wheremay it bbe inferred that inugeiis an expression of sorrow? As it is written: “My soul drips in sorrow [ ituga /i]”(Psalms 119:28). bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:The proof that inugeiindicates suffering is bfrom here: “Her virgins are sorrowed [ inugot /i] and she is embittered”(Lamentations 1:4).
5. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

49a. ואימא היכא דהדרא לבי נשא הדרא למילתא קמייתא אמר רבא ההוא כבר פסקה תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל,דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (במדבר ל, י) ונדר אלמנה וגרושה כל אשר אסרה על נפשה יקום עליה מה תלמוד לומר והלא מוצאת מכלל אב ומוצאת מכלל בעל,אלא הרי שמסר האב לשלוחי הבעל או שמסרו שלוחי האב לשלוחי הבעל ונתארמלה בדרך או נתגרשה היאך אני קורא בה בית אביה של זו או בית בעלה של זו אלא לומר לך כיון שיצאה שעה אחת מרשות האב שוב אינו יכול להפר,אמר רב פפא אף אנן נמי תנינא הבא על נערה המאורסה אינו חייב עד שתהא נערה בתולה מאורסה והיא בבית אביה בשלמא נערה ולא בוגרת בתולה ולא בעולה מאורסה ולא נשואה בבית אביה למעוטי מאי לאו למעוטי מסר האב לשלוחי הבעל,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אף אנן נמי תנינא הבא על אשת איש כיון שנכנסה לרשות הבעל לנשואין אף על פי שלא נבעלה הבא עליה הרי זה בחנק נכנסה לרשות הבעל בעלמא שמע מינה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big האב אינו חייב במזונות בתו זה מדרש דרש רבי אלעזר בן עזריה לפני חכמים בכרם ביבנה הבנים יירשו והבנות יזונו מה הבנים אינן יורשין אלא לאחר מיתת האב אף הבנות אין ניזונות אלא לאחר מיתת אביהן:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big במזונות בתו הוא דאינו חייב הא במזונות בנו חייב בתו נמי חובה הוא דליכא הא מצוה איכא מני מתניתין לא רבי מאיר לא רבי יהודה ולא רבי יוחנן בן ברוקא,דתניא מצוה לזון את הבנות קל וחומר לבנים דעסקי בתורה דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר מצוה לזון את הבנים וקל וחומר לבנות משום זילותא ר' יוחנן בן ברוקא אומר חובה לזון את הבנות לאחר מיתת אביהן אבל בחיי אביהן אלו ואלו אינן ניזונין,מני מתניתין אי רבי מאיר הא אמר בנים מצוה אי רבי יהודה הא אמר בנים נמי מצוה אי רבי יוחנן בן ברוקא אפי' מצוה נמי ליכא,איבעית אימא רבי מאיר איבעית אימא ר' יהודה איבעית אימא רבי יוחנן בן ברוקא,איבעית אימא ר' מאיר והכי קאמר האב אינו חייב במזונות בתו והוא הדין לבנו הא מצוה בבתו איכא קל וחומר לבנים והאי דקתני בתו הא קמ"ל 49a. The Gemara asks another question: bBut saythat in a case bwhere she returns to her father’s house,she breturnsto the bprevious matter,i.e., her former status, as though she had never left her father’s authority. bRava said: Thatquestion bhas already been resolvedby bthe itannaof the school of Rabbi Yishmael. /b,This is basthe itannaof bthe school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: “But the vow of a widow or of a divorcée, everything with which she has bound her soul shall stand against her”(Numbers 30:10). bWhatis the meaning when bthe verse statesthis? bIs it notalready known that if she is widowed or divorced bshe hasalready bbeen removed from the categoryof one under the authority of her bfather and she haslikewise bbeen removed from the categoryof one under the authority of her bhusband?Who, then, could possibly nullify her vows?, bRather,this is referring to a case bwhere the father deliveredhis daughter bto the husband’s messengers or where the father’s messengers deliveredher bto the husband’s messengers, and she was widowed or divorced onher bwayto the wedding canopy. bHow do I consider her?Is she a member of bher father’s house, ora member of bher husband’s house?Her status is entirely unclear. bRather,this verse comes bto tell you: Since she has left her father’s domainfor ba short timeher father bis no longer able to nullifyher vows, as she is considered a widow or a divorcée in all regards. The same applies to the issue at hand: She retains the status of a married woman even if she returns to her father’s house., bRav Pappa said: We, too, learnthis principle in a mishna ( iSanhedrin66b): bOne who has intercourse with a young woman betrothedto another bis liableto stoning bonly if she is a virgin, a young woman, betrothed, and she is in her father’s house.The Gemara analyzes this mishna: bGranted,the term byoung womanindicates that this punishment does bnotapply if she is ba grown woman;similarly, this punishment applies only if she is ba virgin, but notif she is ba non-virgin,and only if she is bbetrothed, but notif she is ba married woman.However, when the mishna states that she is bin her father’s house, whatdoes that phrase come bto exclude?Does it bnotserve bto excludea case when bthe father deliveredher bto the husband’s messengers,indicating that in such a case the punishment of stoning no longer applies?, bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We, too, learnthis principle in another mishna ( iSanhedrin89a): With regard to bone who has intercourse with a married woman, once she has entered her husband’s authority for marriage, even though she has not had intercoursewith him, bone who has intercourse with her ispunished bby strangulation,which is the punishment for adultery with a married woman. It is clear that this ihalakhaapplies if bshe merely entered the husband’s authorityfor the purpose of marriage, even if they have not yet entered the wedding canopy. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, blearn from herethat this is so., strongMISHNA: /strong bA father is not obligated toprovide bhis daughter’s sustece. This exposition was expoundedby bRabbi Elazar ben Azarya before the Sages in the vineyard of Yavne:Since the Sages instituted that after the father’s death, bthe sons inheritthe sum of money specified in their mother’s marriage contract, band the daughters are sustainedfrom their father’s estate, these the two ihalakhotare equated: bJust as the sons inherit only after the father’s death,not during his lifetime, bso too, the daughters are sustainedfrom his property bonly after their father’s death. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong With regard to the mishna’s statement that a father is not obligated to provide his daughter’s sustece, the Gemara infers: bIt is with regard toproviding bhis daughter’s sustece that he is not obligated, but with regard toproviding bhis son’s sustece, he is obligated.Furthermore, with regard to bhis daughter, too, there is no obligation,and therefore the court cannot compel him to provide sustece for his daughter, bbut there is a mitzva,i.e., it is proper, for him to do so. With this interpretation in mind, bwhoseopinion is expressed in bthe mishna?It is bnot Rabbi Meir, nor Rabbi Yehuda, nor Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka. /b, bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i, it is ba mitzva to sustain daughters,and the same applies by ban ia fortiori /iinference bto sons, who are engaged inthe study of bTorah.This is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says:It is ba mitzva to sustain sons,and the same applies by ban ia fortiori /iinference bwith regard to daughters, due tothe bdishonorthey will suffer if they are forced to go around begging. bRabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka says:It is ban obligation to sustain the daughters after their father’s death; however, during their father’s lifetimeboth bthese and those,sons and daughters alike, bare not sustained. /b,The Gemara restates its question: bWhoseopinion is expressed in bthe mishna? Ifyou say it is bRabbi Meir, didn’t he saythat providing sustece even to one’s bsonsis merely ba mitzva,not an obligation? bIfthe mishna expresses the opinion of bRabbi Yehuda, didn’t he saythat providing sustece to one’s bsonsis balso a mitzva,not an obligation? bIfit is bRabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka,according to his opinion bthere is not even a mitzvato provide sustece for one’s daughters. Consequently, none of opinions of the itanna’imof the ibaraitafits the ruling of the mishna.,The Gemara answers that the mishna can be explained in several different ways. bIf you wish, saythat the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Meir; if you wish, saythat it follows the opinion of bRabbi Yehuda;and bif you wish, sayit is the opinion of bRabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka. /b,The Gemara explains in detail: bIf you wish, sayit is bRabbi Meir, and this is what he saidin the mishna: bA father is not obligated toprovide bhis daughter’s sustece, and the same is true with regard toproviding sustece for bhis son.This indicates that bthere is a mitzva,though not an obligation, to provide for bhis daughter,and by ban ia fortiori /iinference it is a mitzva with regard bto the sons. Andthe reason bthatthe mishna bteachesonly the case of bhis daughter,and omitted any mention of sons, is not because a father is obligated to feed his sons. Instead, it bteaches us this: /b
6. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

21b. ביום אחד או בארבעה ימים אין זה דבר,דרוקרת עיר המוציאה חמש מאות רגלי הוה ויצאו ממנה שלשה מתים ביום אחד גזר רב נחמן בר רב חסדא תעניתא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק כמאן כר"מ,דאמר ריחק נגיחותיו חייב קירב נגיחותיו לא כ"ש,א"ל רב נחמן בר רב חסדא לרב נחמן בר יצחק ליקום מר ליתי לגבן א"ל תנינא רבי יוסי אומר לא מקומו של אדם מכבדו אלא אדם מכבד את מקומו שכן מצינו בהר סיני שכל זמן שהשכינה שרויה עליו אמרה תורה (שמות לד, ג) גם הצאן והבקר אל ירעו אל מול ההר ההוא נסתלקה שכינה ממנו אמרה תורה (שמות יט, יג) במשוך היובל המה יעלו בהר,וכן מצינו באהל מועד שבמדבר שכל זמן שהוא נטוי אמרה תורה (במדבר ה, ב) וישלחו מן המחנה כל צרוע הוגללו הפרוכת הותרו זבין והמצורעים ליכנס שם,אמר ליה אי הכי ניקום אנא לגבי מר אמר ליה מוטב יבא מנה בן פרס אצל מנה בן מנה ואל יבא מנה בן מנה אצל מנה בן פרס,בסורא הוות דברתא בשיבבותיה דרב לא הוות דברתא סברו מיניה משום זכותיה דרב דנפיש איתחזי להו בחילמא רב דנפישא זכותיה טובא הא מילתא זוטרא ליה לרב אלא משום ההוא גברא דשייל מרא וזבילא לקבורה,בדרוקרת הוות דליקתא ובשיבבותיה דרב הונא לא הוות דליקתא סבור מינה בזכותא דרב הונא דנפיש איתחזי להו בחילמא האי זוטרא ליה לרב הונא אלא משום ההיא איתתא דמחממת תנורא ומשיילי לשיבבותיה,אמרו ליה לרב יהודה אתו קמצי גזר תעניתא אמרו ליה לא קא מפסדן אמר להו זוודא אייתו בהדייהו,אמרו ליה לרב יהודה איכא מותנא בחזירי גזר תעניתא נימא קסבר רב יהודה מכה משולחת ממין אחד משולחת מכל המינין לא שאני חזירי דדמיין מעייהו לבני אינשי,אמרו ליה לשמואל איכא מותנא בי חוזאי גזר תעניתא א"ל והא מרחק אמר ליכא מעברא הכא דפסיק ליה,אמרו ליה לרב נחמן איכא מותנא בארעא דישראל גזר תעניתא אמר אם גבירה לוקה שפחה לא כל שכן,טעמא דגבירה ושפחה הא שפחה ושפחה לא והא אמרו ליה לשמואל איכא מותנא בי חוזאי גזר תעניתא שאני התם כיון דאיכא שיירתא דלווי ואתיא בהדיה,אבא אומנא הוה אתי ליה שלמא ממתיבתא דרקיעא כל יומא ולאביי כל מעלי יומא דשבתא לרבא כל מעלי יומא דכיפורי הוה קא חלשא דעתיה דאביי משום דאבא אומנא אמרו ליה לא מצית למיעבד כעובדיה,ומאי הוו עובדיה דאבא אומנא דכי הוה עביד מילתא הוה מחית גברי לחוד ונשי לחוד ואית ליה לבושא דאית ביה קרנא דהוות בזיעא כי כוסילתא כי הוות אתיא ליה איתתא הוה מלביש לה כי היכי דלא ניסתכל בה ואית ליה דוכתא דצניעא דשדי ביה פשיטי דשקיל דאית ליה שדי ביה דלית ליה לא מיכסיף,כי הוה אתרמי ליה צורבא מרבנן אגרא מיניה לא שקיל ובתר דקאי יהיב ליה פשיטי ואמר ליה זיל בריא נפשך יומא חד שדר אביי זוגא דרבנן למיבדקיה אותבינהו ואכלינהו ואשקינהו ומך להו ביסתרקי בליליא 21b. If all three died bon one day or over four days,this is not a plague of bpestilence. /b,In explanation of the counterintuitive ruling that many deaths in one day is not indicative of a plague, the Gemara relates: bDrokartwas a city that bsent out five hundred infantrymen, and three dead were removed from it on one day. Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda decreed a faston account of the plague. bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: In accordance with whose opiniondid you declare this fast? It must be bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Meir. /b,This is related to the definition of a forewarned ox, an animal that has gored enough times to be considered a dangerous beast that requires careful supervision, basRabbi Meir bsaid:The owner of an ox is bliableto pay full damages if bitsacts of bgoring were separated,i.e., if it gored three times on three consecutive days, as claimed by the Rabbis. If bitsacts of bgoring were neareach other, performed on a single day, is it bnot all the more sothat this animal should be classified as a forewarned ox? However, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak continued, this represents a minority opinion. Just as Rabbi Meir’s reasoning is rejected for ihalakhain the case of an ox, so too it is rejected with regard to a plague.,Upon hearing this impressive argument, bRav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Let the Master arise and cometo live bwith usas our community leader. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak bsaid to him: Wealready blearnedin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yosei says:It is bnot the place of a personthat bhonors him; rather,the bperson honors his place, as we found with regard to Mount Sinai, that as long as the Divine Presence rested upon it, the Torah said: “Neither let the flocks nor the herds feed before that mount”(Exodus 34:3). Once bthe Divine Presence departed fromthe mountain, bthe Torah said: “When the ishofarsounds long they shall come up to the mount”(Exodus 19:13). This indicates that the sanctity was not inherent to the place but was due to the Divine Presence resting there., bAnd we likewise found with regard to the Tent of Meeting that was in the wilderness, that whenever it was erected, the Torah said: “That they put out of the camp every leper”(Numbers 5:2). Once bthe curtain was rolled upand the Tent of Meeting was prepared for travel, izavimand lepers were permitted to enterthe place where it had stood. The place itself had no intrinsic sanctity; rather, it was sacred only because the Divine Presence was there. Accordingly, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak maintained that there is no reason for him to move places to receive honor.,Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda bsaid toRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: bIf so, let me ariseand come bto the Master,to learn Torah from you. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak bsaid to him:It is bbetterthat bone hundred dinarsthat is the bson of a iperas /i,fifty dinars, bshould come to one hundred dinarsthat is the bson of one hundred dinars; but one hundred dinarsthat is the bson of one hundred dinars, should not come to one hundred dinarsthat is the bson of a iperas /i.In other words, although Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was a learned scholar, comparable to one hundred dinars, it was nevertheless more appropriate for him to come to Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda. Whereas Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was the son of a iperas /i, an ordinary man, Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda was the son of a scholar.,The Gemara relates another story involving a plague: Once bthere wasa plague of bpestilence in Sura,but bin the neighborhood of Rav there was no pestilence.The people btherefore thoughtthat this was bdue to Rav’s great merit.However, bit was revealed to them in a dreamthat bRav’s merit was too greatand bthis matter too small forthe merit of bRavto be involved. bRather,his neighborhood was spared bdue tothe acts of kindness of ba certain man, whowould blend his hoe [ imara /i] and shovel [ izevila /i]to prepare sites bfor burial. /b,The Gemara relates a similar incident. bIn Drokart there was a fire, but in the neighborhood of Rav Huna there was no fire.The people btherefore thoughtthat this was bdue to Rav Huna’s great merit. It was revealed to them in a dreamthat bthismatter was btoo small forthe merit of bRav Hunato have played a role. bRather,it was bdue to a certain woman who heats her oven and lends it,i.e., the use of her oven, bto her neighbors. /b, bThey said to Rav Yehuda: Locusts have cometo our region. Rav Yehuda bdecreed a fast. They said to him: They are not destroyinganything, as they are eating only a little. bHe said to them: Have they brought provisions with them,that they have something else to eat? Even if they are not damaging your crops now, they will certainly eat them soon.,On another occasion, bthey said to Rav Yehuda: There is pestilence among the pigs. Rav Yehuda decreed a fast.The Gemara asks: bLet us saythat bRav Yehuda maintainsthat ba plague affecting one specieswill come to baffect all species,and that is why he decreed a fast. The Gemara answers: bNo,in other cases there is no cause for concern. However, bpigs are different, as their intestines are similar tothose of bhumans.Consequently, their disease might spread to people., bThey said to Shmuel: There is pestilence inthe region of bBei Ḥozai,which is quite a distance from Babylonia. Shmuel bdecreed a fast. They said to him: But it is farfrom here. bHe said: There is no crossing here that will stopthe pestilence, and therefore there is cause for concern that it will reach us., bThey said to Rav Naḥman: There is pestilence in Eretz Yisrael. Rav Naḥman decreed a fastin Babylonia, bsaying: If the ladyof the house, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, bis afflicted,is it bnot all the more sothat bthe maidservant,Babylonia, will be afflicted?,The Gemara asks: The breasonfor this ruling is apparently only because Eretz Yisrael is ba ladyin comparison to the Diaspora, which is likened to ba maidservant.It may be inferred from this that in a case involving ba maidservant and a maidservant,i.e., two places in the Diaspora, there is no reason to fast. bButin the previous story, when bthey said to Shmuel: There is pestilence inthe region of bBei Ḥozai, he decreed a fastin Neharde’a, despite the fact that Neharde’a is not considered a lady with respect to Bei Ḥozai. The Gemara answers: It bis different there. Since there are caravansthat regularly travel from Bei Ḥozai to Neharde’a, the pestilence bwill join and accompanythem binthe caravans.,§ Apropos the above stories that deal with the merits of ordinary people, the Gemara relates: bAbba the Bloodletter would receive greetings from the yeshiva on High every day, and Abaye would receivethese greetings bevery Shabbat eve, and Rava would receivegreetings only once a year bon Yom Kippur eve.Abaye bwas distressed due to Abba the Bloodletter,as he did not understand why Abba received greater honor than he did. bThey said to him: You are unable to perform what he does,and therefore you do not merit the same honor.,The Gemara asks: bAnd what were theserighteous bdeeds of Abba the Bloodletter?The Gemara explains bthat when he would perform a matterof bloodletting, bhe would bring in men separately from women,for reasons of modesty. bAnd he hada special bgarmentthat bhad a slit in the place of the incision [ ikusilta /i]where the bloodletting instrument was inserted. bWhen a woman came to him, he wouldhave bher dress in that garment, so that he would not see herexposed. bAndfurthermore, bhe had a hidden placewhere he worked, bwherecustomers bwould place the coins [ ipeshitei /i] that he would takeas his fee. In this manner, bone who hadmoney bwould throwit bthere,while bone who did not have money was not embarrassed. /b, bWhen a Torah scholar came to himfor bloodletting, bhe would take no pay from him, and afterthe scholar barose,Abba bwould give him money and say to him: Goand purchase food with this money bto heal yourself,as it is important to eat healthy food after bloodletting. bOne day, Abaye sent a pair of Sages to investigatethe extent of Abba the Bloodletter’s righteousness. Abba the Bloodletter bsat them down, and gave themfood bto eat, and gave themsomething bto drink. And at night he spread out mats [ ibistarkei /i] for themto sleep on.
7. Papyri, P.Yadin, 18-19, 10



Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
academies, rabbinic, access to Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 139
academies, rabbinic, reclusiveness of Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 139
amei haarets (nonlearned jews) Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 139
amoraim, and decline of the generations Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 167
arrangement and reasoning of rhetoric Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 114
assembly-house (bet vaad) Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 167
bar kokhba Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 24
bavli (babylonian talmud), vs. yerushalmi Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 167
children, rights and obligations of Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 114
custom Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 24
egypt Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 24
eleazar b. azariah, r., and rabban gamaliel Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 139
eleazar b. azariah, r. Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 167
eleazar ben azariah, r. Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 114
elitism Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 139
ethos, fathers, obligations of Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 114
gamaliel, rabban, and access to academy Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 139
gamaliel, rabban, deposition of Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 167
gift Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 24
hellenic law Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 24
hellenism, sasanians and Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 114
hellēnikō nomō Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 24
hidary, richard Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 114
huna, r. Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 167
judah Katzoff, Law in the Documents of the Judaean Desert (2005) 217
kallah months Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 167
ketubah Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 114
latin Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 24
marriage, priests and Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 75
marriage, stages of Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 75
masada Katzoff, Law in the Documents of the Judaean Desert (2005) 217
meir, r. Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 114
miṣvah Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 114
nahman b. r. hisda, r. Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 167
nahman b. yizhaq, r. Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 167
nissuin (marriage) Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 75
papyrus Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 24
parapherna Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 24
phernē Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 24
priests Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 75
proix Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 24
prosphora Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 24
r. akiva Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 75
r. benayah, betulah (virgin, girl of marriageable age) Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 75
r. tarfon Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 75
rav (abba arikha) Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 167
sages, and amei haarets Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 139
sanhedrin Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 167
sasanians Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 114
support of wife Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 24
syriac culture and language Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 114
terumah (priestly tithe) Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 75
teviah (claiming) Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 75
yaakov b. sisi, r. Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 139, 167
yavneh Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 114
yehuda, r. Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 167
yerushalmi (palestinian talmud), bavlis inxuence on Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 167
yohanan, r., and rabban gamaliel Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 139
yose b. r. avun, r. Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 139
yoḥanan ben beroqa, r.' Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 114
νόµος Katzoff, On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies (2019) 24